Want to make a difference? Please donate to The Night Owl!

Follow us on Twitter:

As most of you know, it’s been widely reported that Microsoft has long been “buying” favorable reviews by sending along new versions of Windows installed on powerful note-books to certain tech bloggers. It’s the sort of thing, of course, that you know but can’t always confirm, since it’s not as if a reviewer is going to boast that he or she received a bribe for touting the product or service in question.

Well, this is only a microcosm of what Advertising Age has called “Blogger Payola,” and it extends to a whole range of endorsements not just from online writers but celebrities as well, particularly when done on social sites, such as Twitter. In response, the FTC has issued a new set of tough guidelines about such unethical behavior.

What this basically means is that these endorsements or testimonials must be accompanied by full disclosure as to whether there’s some sort of commercial relationship between the company and the blogger or celebrity.

In our corner of the universe, it would mean that if a tech writer took a spiff from Microsoft to give them high fives, that fact must be revealed or the offender may face a fine. On Twitter, when a movie star says they just love Diet Coke, they have to tell you if they got paid for that endorsement. Unfortunately, the edict is sufficiently unclear that it may require n explicit disclosure for each and every post, not just something buried in the fine print on a site’s footer. But how would that work within the 144 character limit of Twitter?

How this would be enforced is anyone’s guess. It is restricted to the U.S., and it’s not as if the government will attempt to use the Patriot Act to monitor confidential communications between a tech company and the reviewer in question, nor eavesdrop on the lunch meeting between an agent and a celebrity on their latest endorsement deal. The hope is that this will serve as a deterrent to ongoing abusive conduct.

Now I suspect lots of you have long felt that favorable reviews on ad-supported publications have always been influenced by advertising. That’s one of the reasons that Consumer Reports has prospered, because they buy everything they test at normal retail outlets and do not accept advertising.

But that view is a bit too simplistic. A responsible publisher is going to find a way to firewall the advertising and editorial departments. When I wrote for Macworld, for example, I was informed early on that the writers never talked to the ad sales people. We were expected to be honest in our reviews and features, and back up what we say with facts. I never, ever heard from anyone asking or hinting that I should favor one product over another because it would impact ad revenue. When I submitted articles, the editorial comments and corrections were designed to improve the presentation. Nothing more nothing less.

Indeed, in one case, when I reviewed an Apple note-book, my editor at the time suggested that I actually reduce the “mice” rating because my conclusions clearly merited the change.

But what about getting free stuff?

All right, here’s the deal: For software, reviewers generally receive an NFR (Not For Resale) user license or retail boxed copy. You get to keep the product, of course, but nobody forces you to keep using it after the review process is over. Believe me, I removed lots of apps once the article was submitted, because, as the articles clearly expressed, I wasn’t pleased with the product and couldn’t recommend it.

Hardware is a different story. Apple used to send out iPods and let the reviewers keep them, but everything else has a return date, usually two weeks to a month. They will sometimes grant you an extension if that’s not sufficient to complete the review. For example, when I received a first generation iPhone, I was given a two week limit. However, Apple released a software update near the end of the process, so I requested an extension and was granted an additional two weeks. As far as Apple is concerned, if you don’t return the products in a timely fashion, forget about getting any further equipment loans.

Other companies may be more lax about the process, but most will expect to see the hardware back at some point in time. So in the normal course of events, there’s not a whole lot of incentive for a writer to favor one product over another. Having had dozens of boxes in my home office at times, the process of caring for all of them — and not accidentally mixing parts from one with another — can be downright annoying. It’s the price you pay for getting involved in the hardware review process.

Here at The Mac Night Owl, we’re a small company, and I sometimes have to play several roles, so I have devised a mental firewall to deal with the advertising versus editorial content dilemma. But I still apply the very same standards, and I’m certain most online publications do as well.

As far the exceptions, whether they got paid off to favor Microsoft or another company, they have to think about the harm they’ve done to their reputations by selling out.

Please Link to Us!

Related Posts:

Apple, the WWDC and the Wacky Run-up After quite a run, and ahead of a 7-to-1 stock split, Apple's stock price had declined slightly before the WWDC keynote on Monday. I suppose this was to…

The iMac SSD Transplant Report It's quite certain that the designers of recent iMacs didn't consider what might be required if you wanted to change anything more than RAM. And on…

Apple and Microsoft — About Philosophy So in recent days, more and more tech pundits have published comparisons between OS X El Capitan, still a ways from release, and Windows 10, which arrived…

5 Responses to “New FTC Rules May Stop Fake Windows Testimonials”

The big question I have as where do they draw the line between “blogger” and recognized media outlet? These regulations clearly discuss bloggers, but they don’t say what magazines or newspapers have to do.

I have to smile at your praise of MacWorld editorial process and then miss your own.

I’ll let you pick out the oops. 🙂

“Here at The Mac Night Owl, we’re a small company, and I sometimes have to play several roles, so I have devised a mental firewall to deal with the advertising versus editorial content dilemma. But I still apply the very same standards, and I’m certain most online publications do as well.”

The problem with advertising-based revenues is the marketing of the product has to be very positive to be a must-have. A good (and honest) product reviewer provides a more realistic picture by putting into use and grouping the results into pro and con categories. This is valuable information to the shopper who take the time to do research, to read more than one review.

It seems that there is a fear that a bad review may cause the product advertiser to walk away. I look at this as a way for the product maker to make improvements. Bad product makers should go out of business. If they remain in business then it is just a con job. We all should be aware to stay away from them.

While the new FTC rules may inject a little bit more honesty in a review, it really comes down to the reviewers. Are they honest to themselves and their readers? Bad reviewers should be called out for us to stay away from them.